Back on November 11, 2005, I wrote an article that asked:
Are you craving more proclamations from
the administration based on forged documents (quite possibly) of their
own making? Are you having withdrawals from the Niger document fiasco?
Never fear. Today the President cited another forged document, a
document probably thought up by some half-ass Arabist in some latter
day Office of Special Plans. We already know that the myth of Zarqawi
is being used to personalize every attack of every civilian target on
more than one continent. The myth of Zawahiri’s letter to Zarqawi is
now being cited as the main justification for staying the course in
Iraq. From the President’s Veteran’s Day speech today:
Now, I am not an intelligence analyst. But, I’ve known that the Myth of Zarqawi was a fraud for a long time. Now we have confirmation that Zarqawi was largely (or entirely) a psychological operation aimed at deflecting criticism against the conduct of the war and the state of the insurgency.
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The documents state that the U.S. campaign aims to turn Iraqis against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their perceived dislike of foreigners. U.S. authorities claim some success with that effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists.
For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi’s role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the “U.S. Home Audience” as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
Per usual, the fraud was perpetrated by enlisting a reporter from the New York Times (note: Washington Post reporters work just as well).
The revelations come from a briefing that Col. Derek Harvey, gave last summer at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Harvey is from military intelligence and was serving on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of staff.
One slide in the same briefing, for example, noted that a “selective leak” about Zarqawi was made to Dexter Filkins, a New York Times reporter based in Baghdad. Filkins’s resulting article, about a letter supposedly written by Zarqawi and boasting of suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the Times front page on Feb. 9, 2004.
Leaks to reporters from U.S. officials in Iraq are common, but official evidence of a propaganda operation using an American reporter is rare.
Filkins, reached by e-mail, said that he was not told at the time that there was a psychological operations campaign aimed at Zarqawi, but said he assumed that the military was releasing the letter “because it had decided it was in its best interest to have it publicized.” No special conditions were placed upon him in being briefed on its contents, he said. He said he was skeptical about the document’s authenticity then, and remains so now, and so at the time tried to confirm its authenticity with officials outside the U.S. military.
This is how it works, folks. Sometimes witting, sometimes unwitting, the big-foot reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post are used to disseminate propaganda. In this case, Filkins may have been skeptical, but he reported the crap that the Bush administration wanted to get out there. I knew it was pure bullshit at the time. And I’ve been saying that Zarqawi is largely a myth for a year. If they can’t fool me, they can’t fool anyone that really matters. This propaganda was used to shore up domestic support for the war and for Bush’s policies. Score another one for me. In the battle to see who is telling the truth, and who has a better grasp of the facts, I am drubbing this administration about 98-0.
Don’t you hate being right all the time.
I think that’s why so many on the right do hate us. Because we have been right again and again about Bush, and they can’t stand that. They’d rather live with the lies than confront the truth.
I prefer being right than being wrong. But, I do wish that the truth were not so fucking depressing.
This is also available in orange.
Sometimes being right sucks!
“Wild speculation” equals “damn, how did he get so much right”. They still haven’t denied anything, supposedly because they don’t want to take options off the table. Which is obvious bullshit because this president doesn’t believe in options; he believes in deciding on his policy and then pursuing it relentlessly.
here
Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.
If Hirsh’s sources are correct, then this statement is an outright lie. The Bush administration goal in Iran is regime change.
After being served Iraq, – the cheating, the secrecy, the forged documents, fixing intel that led us into that war. Will anyone say why, why this administration can be trusted to tell the truth, at all. Anything close to the truth? No.
This is an administration that deals forgeries, devoid of a conscience and all that’s decent, with not a worry that they’ve sent men and women to die. More than 2350 of ours, 17,000 + maimed and that’s the official count. And how about over there?
There was in fact some truth to the stories we dismissed as tinfoil land.
Never mind talk of impeachment. We need a Gulfstream flight large enough for a dozen. Flight plans; the Hague for delivery to The ICC – Iraq war crimes tribunal.
I’m thinkin’ a “class action” impeachment. Send the whole lot of them to the innermost circle of Hell.
What else is new?
I’ll be on the radio at 3:30 eastern to discuss Plamegate.
You can stream it here: http://www.theguyjamesshow.com/
Sound card died!!!!
oof. That sucks…
It is still hanging in there, don’t know for how long…
November 20, 2005
Zarqawi’s dead (again)? 3rd time’s a charm, eh?
From: CONJUR BLOG
Lost a leg in 2002 (but US later changed their tune)
Killed in March 2004
Came back to life to personally behead Nick Berg (post-Abu Ghraib photo release)
(interesting as no one in that video appeared to be handicapped – Zarqawi had one leg amputated)
Where’s the leg?
Killed again in Oct. 2004
Killed Again
Seriously injured or killed in May 2005
Zarqawi shot in chest/lung in May 2005
Killed and body in Falluja cemetery in June 2005
And now killed again in Nov. 2005
Baghdad imam says Zarqawi killed at beginning of US invasion
Backed up by this March 2004 article:
Zarqawi’s Dead… He Really Is
Oscar Wilde:
“In order to have more than one life, you’ve got to die more than once.”
“To believe is very dull. To doubt is intensely engrossing. To be on the alert is to live, to be lulled into security is to die”
This comment first posted at The Orange Place.
And all the woe that moved him so
That he gave that bitter cry,
And the wild regrets, and the bloody sweats,
None knew so well as I:
For he who lives more lives than one
More deaths that one must die.
Wilde’s writings from prison:
A Ballad of Reading Gaol
1897
Hey Boo, you’re not the only one who was right. The War Nerd nailed it in June 2005.
Pax
I didn’t believe it either but my husband believe it. Some weeks later I heard Wolf mention the letter – using it as proof of Al Queda.